WITH GENTLENESS AND REVERENCE: Bridging Christian Believers through Respectful Dialogue

---

Sir Raven Jard N. Castañeda

Association of Catholic Apologists

8 April 2019

"Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus." (John 18:10)

St. Peter said in his first letter (3:15-16):

"Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope, but do it with gentleness and reverence, keeping your conscience clear…”

As a member of the Association of Catholic Apologists, I am always asked with recurring questions. Why do Catholics believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary? Why do Catholics ask saints for intercessions? Why do Catholics confess their sins to priests? These questions have been answered in a monotonous way. These are the kind of questions that I don’t need to bother thinking overnight just to figure out how to respond, let alone to answer. The answers have long been laid out to me by my fellow apologists (who are a generation or two older than me).

In a lecture, though, that I gave last 7 April 2019 in the San Pedro Cathedral Auditorium, I was asked with a brilliant, unusual question (which I will paraphrase): “Do you think that dialogues unite the religious rather than become a divisive factor?” When he asked it, I was momentarily stunned. No one in the Apologetics field question that. It’s like the unquestionable tenet of Apologetic. No one even bother talking about that anymore. Everyone’s like "Jesus did it."

Paul did it. Peter said it. Justin Martyr certainly did it. But this brave soul in the audience (not really big audience) managed to test the waters. He probably wanted to know what apologetics is about and what really is its place in the Church.

I gave him a relatively short answer that when we discuss then we are able to clarify our differences and similarities. Although I gave some examples, which some are biblical ones, I think I owe him a clearer explanation on the matter.

When I say “discussion”, I do not mean the normal plaza debates which aims to demean and demoralize other parties. This, I think, has been the normal way of doing religious discussions especially by lay religious organizations. If you search it up on YouTube, the title might even be “Roman Catholic Apologist obliterate an Iglesia ni Cristo minister”. Although it might be a good thing that one of our faithful brothers and sisters has been able to answer quite sufficiently to religious questions and challenges, I think the manner and method that we’ve been doing this are irreflexive of the doctrines we hold to defend.

To be fair, the people doing this might not even have intentions on degrading or humiliating the other party. But I think that most of them are already using this as a debate tactic. We in parliamentary circles once use this when we were newbies. However, when we started to mature as a parliamentary debater, we realized that an aggressive humiliating behavior doesn’t win you debates. What gives you the upperhand are content and logic, the ability to provide intensive analysis of your arguments, and the ability to cut through your opponents’ points.

In the Association of Catholic Apologists, we think and firmly believe that those offensive debates should only be done under necessity. If the need arises, then we are going to go with formal debates. But, we shall never engage nor initiate a disrespectful debate. Our alternative, then, is to initiate proper respectful discussions. The difference being respectful discussions have curiosity as a motivation and to clarify as a purpose. This is in comparison to formal debates wherein the motivation and purpose is just to prove the other parties dumb or stupid.

This more amicable, respectful approach is inspired of Sir Ritchel Lagumbay’s method of teaching. His way of teaching and defending is in a manner of, metaphorically, chewing up the arguments than chewing the person himself. This is in contradistinction to other methods of “defending” which is a bit more hostile.

Personally, the kind of system that I would want to employ (taking into consideration of course that a certain number of our members are parliamentary debaters) is the method that Jordan Peterson (Christian) and Sam Harris (Atheist) used in their debates moderated by Bret Weinstein and Douglas Murray. The first thing that they did in their debate is to point out which grounds do they have in common or which propositions do they agree. Secondly, they attempted to steelman each other which means that they tried to argue their opponents arguments in the best possible way and in the way that their opponent agrees that the argument is really their argument. Third part is to have a serious, curious conversation about their reasons for holding a particular proposition.

If you would ask how it would be a unifying factor, I would argue that the manner of conversing, which is respectful and amicable, would reflect more of the character or personality of the faith that we are holding. In addition, it provides a more learning-oriented environment wherein there’s more room to listen than simply to think what to say next or be defensive about your own arguments. With this, more clarification and understanding is grounded, but more importantly a non-hostile relationship is established for both camps.

The bottom line is that most defenders of our faith have been quoting 1 Peter 3:15 and dispensing verse 16. As far as our faith is concerned and our being human is concerned, we should always remember to “be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope, but do it with gentleness and reverence.”

Let’s not be like Peter during the arrest of Christ in the garden (John 18). Let us not cut the ears of those who are different in faith. Let us not cut their ears so that we can still convince them. Let us not cut their ears so as they can still listen to the voice of God.